Please note: You need to have 'Active content' enabled in your IE browser in order to see the index of articles on this webpage

Strong Talk About Zimbabwe at the U.N.

New York Times

By WARREN
HOGE and GRAHAM BOWLEYPublished: April 17, 2008UNITED NATIONS —
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council on Wednesday that he
was “deeply concerned” by the delay in releasing the results of the March 29
presidential election in Zimbabwe and said that international observers
should monitor any second round of voting.

“The credibility of the
democratic process in Africa could be at stake here,” Mr. Ban
said.Addressing the same meeting, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister,
said it was obvious that Robert Mugabe, the longtime president of Zimbabwe,
was trying to overturn an election that had gone against him.

“No one
thinks, having seen the results at polling stations, that President Mugabe
has won this election,” Mr. Brown said. “A stolen election would not be a
democratic election at all.”

And the American ambassador, Zalmay
Khalilzad, said, “We think it’s very important that the election not be
stolen, that the results are released in a way that has credibility and
reflects the will of the people of Zimbabwe.”

Morgan Tsvangirai, the
opposition leader in Zimbabwe, insists that he beat the autocratic Mr.
Mugabe outright, but the governing party says that neither man won and that
a runoff may be necessary. Zimbabwe’s Electoral Commission continues to
refuse to make the final figures public.

The statements at the United
Nations followed a largely failed opposition protest on Tuesday in Zimbabwe
that underscored the difficulties faced by those hoping to oust Mr. Mugabe,
84. The opposition had called for people nationwide to stay home from work
to protest the delay in releasing the election results, but the strike did
little to interrupt the normal flow of life in the cities.

The
statements at the United Nations also exposed rifts among member countries
about how to handle the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Ban expressed frustration
with regional leaders who suggest that the outside world has no role in the
dispute, and he said that “the international community continues to watch
and wait for decisive action.”

Over the weekend, political leaders from
southern African countries did take an unexpectedly strong stand, urging
Zimbabwe’s government to let representatives of the opposition be present
when vote tabulations are verified. But Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s
president, has played down the crisis and counseled patience in dealing with
Zimbabwe.

Wednesday’s meeting at the United Nations of heads of state and
high-ranking officials from Africa was called by South Africa, this month’s
president of the Security Council. It was meant to focus on areas where the
United Nations and the African Union collaborate, which does not include
Zimbabwe.

Mr. Mbeki, who led the meeting, did not mention Zimbabwe during
the daylong Council session.

But at a late-afternoon news conference,
Mr. Mbeki said that Mr. Ban’s recommendation to involve monitors would have
to be put to the Zimbabwean government.

Chiding those calling for a
prompt publication of the vote totals, he said, “It would be quite wrong for
us to shout at the Electoral Commission rather than go and see
them.”

He added, “Whether there is a different way of engaging the
Zimbabwean commission I don’t know, but I am quite certain that we can’t do
it by issuing press statements saying, ‘We demand this.’ ”

South
African news agencies reported Wednesday that a Chinese cargo ship trying to
enter the port in Durban, South Africa, was carrying arms headed for
Zimbabwe, though it was unclear whether the shipment was related to the
current political crisis.

In Zimbabwe, the political stalemate
continued Wednesday as the opposition awaited a decision in its court case
to stop a recount of crucial votes in the presidential and parliamentary
elections.

Official results of last month’s voting showed that the
president’s party, ZANU-PF, had lost control of the lower house of
Parliament for the first time in 28 years. But the Zimbabwean Electoral
Commission said it planned to start a recount of the presidential and
parliamentary votes in 23 districts. If the commission overturns enough
results, ZANU-PF could reclaim its parliamentary majority.

The
Herald, a state-run newspaper, said Wednesday that the police had arrested
36 people as a result of Tuesday’s opposition protest. A police spokesman,
Wayne Bvudzijena, was quoted as saying that some of the protests had turned
violent, leading to the arrests.

G8 foreign ministers worry about Zimbabwe tension

Reuters

Thu 17 Apr
2008, 3:04 GMT

TOKYO, April 17 (Reuters) - Foreign ministers from the
Group of Eight advanced nations expressed "deep concern" on Thursday about
rising tension in Zimbabwe, where the results of a March 29 presidential
election have yet to be released.

They urged a "speedy, credible and
genuinely democratic resolution" to the situation, according to a statement
released by this year's G8 host, Japan.

The opposition in Zimbabwe, a
former British colony, has accused President Robert Mugabe of trying to
steal the election and say he is preparing a violent crackdown.

In
their statement, the G8 foreign ministers said they backed a call by the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) for the quick release of the
election results "in accordance with the due process of law".

The
ministers also endorsed a call by SADC for verification of the vote in the
presence of all candidates or their agents.

"They (the ministers) stress
that violence and intimidation must have no place in this process," the
statement added.

"G8 Foreign Ministers urge a speedy, credible and
genuinely democratic resolution to this situation in accordance with the
wishes of the people of Zimbabwe."

Western nations on Wednesday
joined the United Nations in urging action to ensure a fair outcome from the
elections, but most African countries avoided the issue at a summit of the
Security Council and the African Union. [ID:nL16900630] (Reporting by Linda
Sieg; Editing by Bill Tarrant)

Tense waiting games in Zimbabwe

BBC

19:41 GMT, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 20:41 UK

By Farai Sevenzo Harare

More than two weeks after Zimbabwe's disputed elections, the game between
the country's political factions has become a lot tougher, while the results of
the presidential poll are still nowhere to be seen.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has tried to force the
issue legally, but the judge ruled that he had no sway over when the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission (ZEC) should release the results of the 29 March poll.

There is strong security presence in some
places

With just 20% of the population in full-time formal employment, the MDC's
first shot of engagement, Tuesday's general strike, was feeble and, some would
say, predictable.

"People don't want stay-aways, they want to know what to do about their
votes," a Harare lawyer tells me over the telephone.

"In the meantime, the people who claim they have won are showing absolutely
no leadership - I believe [MDC leader Morgan] Tsvangirai is in Botswana - it
reminds me of that Third World song: 'Now that you've found love what are you
going to do with it?' There is no leadership."

Lost momentum

And that has been the MDC's difficulty - having claimed victory, they have no
control over anything - the results, the courts, the police, or access to the
public through the airwaves which chanted their slogans so keenly 17 days ago.

The momentum they had enjoyed has evaporated; in its place a silence among
the leadership is noticeable.

Meanwhile, Southern African Development Community (SADC) heads of state have
met and deliberated that the two parties should accept Zec's results.

But no one believes that the results will come any time soon.

The issue of Zimbabwe has now moved from the SADC regional grouping to the
international scrutiny of the UN Security Council.

South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, a smiling friend of the ruling Zanu-PF,
would like to discuss trouble spots like Somalia and Darfur, but Zimbabwe and
its political impasse has become the order of the day.

The game has indeed got a lot tougher.

Unleashed

Reports started coming in early last week of a new wave of farm
invasions.

Opposition calls for a strike went largely
unheeded

The Commercial Farmer's Union tells me, yes, some of their members had come
under attack, livestock had been slaughtered, families had moved out to the
safety of towns.

Some have condemned the fresh attacks, such as governor of the Reserve Bank
Gideon Gono - a man trying to manage Zimbabwe's embattled economy - who is a
chief critic.

Something has been unleashed, although it is difficult to get a clear
picture.

Zimbabweans with satellite television are watching international broadcasters
talk of a wave of violence sweeping the countryside, targeting members of the
opposition, dragging the sick out of mission hospitals and threatening war
should the vote go the same way again in the event of a run-off.

Non-government newspapers on sale in Harare are full of swollen limbs, while
the language of the state has got more belligerent as the gag tightens on those
results.

"We have not yet been able to confirm some of the reports we've been
getting," says Olivia Muchenge, of the non-governmental organisation ZimRights.

"But the reports suggest a backlash is under way. We know for certain that
some Harare youths from the Youth Forum are in a private hospital in Masvingo
after being assaulted."

And the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights says its members
have treated 157 victims of post-election violence.

Crowd control

In these tense times, the state broadcaster is less neutral than it was
before the elections.

On Tuesday, it said a bus had been set alight in the Harare suburb of
Kuwadzana by MDC supporters wanting to stop people going to work, but no-one
could confirm the mob action.

For over a week now, police and soldiers have been practising along
Main Way

A mechanic on independence day
celebrations

Later a policeman, who has proved an accurate source in the past, rang me
about Tuesday's events.

He told me that a bus did burn in Kuwadzana, but it was because of a
technical fault.

He also said Tuesday's crowds were difficult to control in the Harare
township ward of Budiriro, Highfields.

"We had to talk to them without our truncheons and teargas canisters before
they would disperse," he tells me .

Going on parade

Now the date on everyone's mind is 18 April - when Zimbabweans are to
celebrate their 28 years of independence from the UK.

"For over a week now, police and soldiers have been practising along Main
Way, the road leading to Machipisa, the heart of Highfields," Thomas, a
mechanic, tells me.

"They will be holding Independence Day in Gwanzura Stadium. The Harare City
Council has been cleaning in preparation for the president's visit."

And that is just it. The president is still the president, his motorcade will
pass through a constituency where at one polling station, Highfields Secondary,
the party of independence gained 14 votes - according to results we do not yet
know.

Mugabe Turns to Force to Reverse Poll Defeat

Business Day
(Johannesburg)

17 April 2008Posted to the web 17 April
2008

Dumisani MuleyaJohannesburg

ZIMBABWEAN President Robert
Mugabe and his Zanu (PF) party - defeated in recent elections after 28 years
at the helm - are plotting to retain power through a combination of force
and official challenges designed to frustrate the opposition and drain their
resources.

This week the government stepped up the deployment of army,
police and intelligence units countrywide to campaign for Mugabe in an
upcoming runoff poll after he failed to win presidential
elections.

This despite the fact that the poll results have not been
officially announced, and that a date for the runoff has not been set.
Opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai has
claimed victory in the election.

An increased military presence has
been noted and there are fears that Mugabe will use troops to bolster his
campaign. Security forces have already arrested dozens of opposition
supporters, and MDC officials said they were concerned violent incidents
would increase.

During a session of the United Nations (UN) Security
Council, chaired by President Thabo Mbeki in New York yesterday, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad were among
the first to express concern about the crisis. They repeated UN calls for
the immediate release of the election results in an effort to end the
stalemate.

Mbeki's facilitator, Local Government Minister Sydney
Mufamadi, was due to visit Harare for talks with Mugabe and Tsvangirai
yesterday but was unable to because Tsvangirai was out of the country
soliciting support from regional leaders.

The MDC remains sceptical
of Mbeki's mediation, sources say, and there are behind the scenes
negotiations to get Mugabe and Tsvangirai together as a step towards
brokering some sort of deal. But, while the stalemate continues, sources
said this week that Mugabe and his loyalists were pulling out all the stops
to reverse their recent defeat. Meetings have been held countrywide by party
structures which reviewed Mugabe's and Zanu (PF)'s loss.

Sources said
that Zanu (PF) was consolidating its resources to regain a majority in
parliament and then win the presidential election via a runoff or re-run.
The strategy includes delaying results to buy time; a runoff poll and
coercion to force voters to again vote for Mugabe.

Sources said Mug-abe's
close ally, Emmerson Mnangagwa, had recently met allies in Johannesburg to
discuss fundraising. They said Mugabe wanted the March 29 presidential poll
results withheld while the party regrouped . They also hoped that the
disputed recount of votes in 23 constituencies would lead to the party
regaining a marginal majority in the house of assembly.

Zanu (PF) won 97
seats while the combined opposition won 110. Three seats are vacant because
the elections were postponed after candidates died before the polls. Out of
23 recounts, Zanu (PF) needs at least 14 seats to keep control of
parliament. The MDC launched a counterattack by challenging the results in
60 constituencies.

It is believed Zanu (PF) party officials have been
dispatched to approach fired or suspended members to campaign for Mugabe.
Many, including expelled former information minister Jonathan Moyo, have
apparently refused.

More worrying is news that war veterans, youths, and
security forces including army and intelligence officers have been deployed
to campaign for Mugabe.

Much confusion over Zim 'arms' ship

Thu, 17 Apr
2008A Chinese ship, whose cargo is alleged to include arms for Zimbabwe has
been cleared to dock and offload its controversial cargo in Durban's port,
Transnet said on Wednesday.

Transnet spokesperson John Dludlu
said in a statement released late on Wednesday: "As for vessel An Yue Jiang,
we wish to confirm that this vessel with its cargo destined for Zimbabwe is
at anchorage outside the Port of Durban.

"As is procedure with all
vessels, the vessel and its cargo have been cleared by the relevant
authorities," he said.

However, Dludlu did not say what the contents of
the cargo were — which according to Noseweek editor Martin Welz includes a
shipment of arms.

The ship's master, who identified himself as captain
Sunaijun, told Sapa by radio phone that there was "no dangerous cargo on
general cargo".

Asked if there was cargo destined for Zimbabwe, he
confirmed there was.

However, clarity on the contents of the cargo could
not be ascertained due to the poor quality connection in communicating with
the ship.

Earlier, on Wednesday Inspector Nicholas Gunther of the Police
Explosives Unit in Durban told Sapa that An Yue Juang was carrying
weapons.

"There are arms on the vessel and the ship is on the outer
anchorage of the port and it's been docked here since 14 April. We have not
allowed it in because they have no clearance, which is something they should
have gotten beforehand.

"We went there just now and they are not
being allowed in," he said.

"There was a problem with documents they
submitted and we have directed the matter to the chief inspector of
explosives in Pretoria, Senior Superintendent Van Sittert, and it may take
days for them to get clearance," said Gunther.

Gunther said that if
the vessel's entire cargo did not get clearance, it would not be allowed to
dock. He explained that if, for example, the ship was carrying 500
containers and only one container had not been cleared, the vessel would
still be allowed to enter the port.

"They would be allowed to enter,
offload those containers that have been cleared by the South African
government and leave with those that had not been cleared."

Gunther
told Sapa that he was not certain if any of the cargo was destined for
Zimbabwe.

"But if it was a trans-shipment then it gets imported here and
is sent by road or rail to neighbouring countries. We are not sure if that's
what they are doing," he said.

Leonard Hadebe, head of customs in
Durban said: "We have confirmed that the shipment was headed for
Zimbabwe.

"Right now the ship is awaiting clearance. If they are carrying
any prohibited or illegal goods, they will be detained by
customs.

"So far I've been told that there are 36 containers on board and
until customs has cleared the containers we don't know what's
inside."

Durban port captain Ricky Bhikraj confirmed that the An Yue
Jiang was scheduled to dock in Durban's harbour on
Thursday.

"Allegations are being handled by various national security
authorities," he said.

Asked where he had obtained the information from, Welz said it
was his "own business".

Bhikraj, asked whether there were arms on the
ship, said: "We can't comment on whether or not there are arms on the
vessel."

National police spokesperson Captain Dennis Adriao said he would
comment on the matter once he had more details.

Spoornet spokesperson
Mike Asefovitz said he was not aware that Spoornet had been tasked with
transporting the ship's cargo from Durban.

He said that during the
apartheid era the previous regime transported arms and military equipment on
specially-designed trains within the country.

He said Spoornet no longer
possessed any such specialised trains.

Democratic Alliance spokesperson
Rafeek Shah said: "Due to the gravity of the situation government needs to
clarify exactly what the status and nature of the shipment is without
delay.

"There are conflicting reports about whether the weapons are still
on board the ship concerned or whether they, in fact, are on the road to
Zimbabwe. Either way, it is imperative that action is taken to ensure that
these weapons are not allowed to destabilise what is already a precarious
situation in Zimbabwe."Sapa

Chinese intervention fears

JOHANNESBURG - “God is the only one who can protect us, we need
help”. These were the words of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in
Zimbabwe after the recent bloodshed and violence in Zimbabwe.

After
bloodshed in Zimbabwe and with fears voiced about possible intervention on
President Robert Mugabe’s behalf by Chinese troops, the opposition MDC is
close to despair.

The spokesman for MDC, Nelson Chamisa, yesterday told
The Citizen the situation in Zimbabwe was increasingly disheartening: “God
is the only one who can protect us, we need help.”

Chamisa said he
was trying to come to terms with Mugabe’s mobilisation of vigilantes to
terrorise villagers in Matabeleland, Mashonaland and Manicaland.

“The
vigilante groups are brutally assaulting women, men and children who are
believed to be MDC members,” he said.

Nqobizitha Mlilo, of the MDC,
yesterday said 50 houses had been razed and 200 people assaulted this week.
He said “10 armed Chinese men” were seen harassing the residents of
Chimanimani in Manicaland, targeting MDC supporters, and this had led to
fears of foreign intervention.

“The police say they can do nothing
because they have been given political orders and cannot intervene,” Chamisa
said.

Region cannot afford deeper crisis in
Zimbabwe —
Zuma

AFRICAN
National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma has urged Zimbabwe’s electoral
commission to work closely with the affected parties and to resolve the
delay in the voting verification process.

Addressing a Chambers of
Commerce and Industry of SA (Chamsa) conference, Zuma said: “The region
cannot afford a deepening crisis in Zimbabwe. The situation is more worrying
now, given the reported violence that has erupted in the country."

He
wished President Thabo Mbeki, as a mediator, and all political parties
Godspeed in seeking a sustainable solution .

He also said the ANC
backed the call for the South African police to use lethal force should
their lives or those of the public be in imminent danger.

“In this
war against crime we reiterate that our laws must bite. They must favour the
victims of crime and be unsympathetic to those who deliberately seek crime
as their employment."

He told the conference it should continue to
support the country’s law enforcement agencies, especially the
police.

“The safety of our police officials and our citizens is of
paramount importance," he said. However, police had to act within the law.
“We obviously cannot, as a ruling party or government, advocate a culture of
trigger-happy police officials."

Last week, Deputy Safety and
Security Minister Susan Shabangu told police they should kill criminals if
they threatened police or the community: “You must kill the bastards if they
threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations.
That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and
protect."

Zuma said everyone had a role to play in building a united
patriotic front in the war against crime.

“How do we explain the
audacity of criminals who break into and rob a court of law, violating an
institution which should protect us all, whose premises should be
sacrosanct?" Sapa

Diplomats at UN push for accord on Zimbabwe

Boston Globe

By Maggie
FarleyLos Angeles Times / April 17, 2008UNITED NATIONS - Top diplomats
at a special UN Security Council session on Africa pressed Zimbabwe's
president yesterday to solve the country's election crisis, with British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown charging that "no one" thinks President Robert
Mugabe has won.

more stories like thisUN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon urged Mugabe to release the final results of the March 29 election
that may topple the 84-year-old ruler, warning that the situation could
seriously deteriorate in Zimbabwe. He offered the United Nations' help to
resolve the impasse, including assisting in a second round of "fair and
transparent" elections if needed.

Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai claims victory, based on results posted outside of polling places
on election day. He has accused Mugabe of using the delay to try to rig the
results.

"No one thinks, having seen the results of polling stations,
that President Mugabe has won this election," Brown told fellow leaders and
officials from the Security Council and African Union nations gathered for
the session on African peace and security. "A stolen election would not be a
democratic election at all."

The meeting, chaired by President Thabo
Mbeki of South Africa, which holds the Security Council presidency for
April, focused on how the Security Council could help the African Union
solve regional conflicts. But the session was riven by subtle conflicts
itself: Mbeki, an influential ally of Mugabe, said last week after a visit
to Zimbabwe that "there is no crisis" and warned other countries not to
meddle.

South Africa has blocked the Security Council from addressing the
issue. Mbeki canceled a morning meeting with Brown due to "schedule
conflicts," which British officials sought to assure reporters was not a
snub. Before the morning council session, a small plane chartered by
advocacy group Avaaz.org towed a banner above the UN headquarters declaring
"Mbeki: Time to Act - Democracy for Zimbabwe."

The meeting aimed to
smooth cooperation between the Security Council and the African Union. The
UN and the AU would like the regional group to assume greater responsibility
in dealing with local conflicts, which occupy much of the Security Council's
agenda.

The secretary general yesterday called for creating an African
standby force to be supported by an international trust fund and mediation
team. The United States, which pays 23 percent of the budget for all
peacekeeping operations, and Sudan urged the Security Council to focus on
preventing conflict to reduce the need for costly peacekeeping
intervention.

The African Union's effort to stabilize the conflict in
Sudan's Darfur region has become a symbol of the unfulfilled potential of
regional groups to mediate conflicts. Poorly equipped and underfunded AU
troops seeking to bring peace to the war-torn region were absorbed into a
joint AU-UN force in January in hopes of better protecting
civilians.

The joint force aims to deploy 26,000 troops by the end of the
year, but so far, only 9,000 are on the ground.

The deployment has
been delayed in part by Sudan's insistence that all the forces must be
composed of African soldiers.

A Shameful Betrayal of National Independence

The Case for
both Outthinking ZANU-PF and Putting National Interest
First

By Arthur G.O.
Mutambara

18th April 2008; Harare,
Zimbabwe

Introduction

Fellow citizens once
again we commemorate the great occasion of the independence of our country
from colonial and imperialist rule. The 18th April should always be an
opportunity for us as a nation to reflect, take stock, and define new
trajectories. This particular 28th commemoration is like none of the
previous ones. We are in uniquely invidious circumstances. Our economy has
virtually collapsed and industries have grinded to a halt. Our society is
calibrated by fear, terror and outright brutality. Our national institutions
of governance have been rendered dysfunctional and impotent. We have had
harmonized general elections, and twenty days later the results of the
Presidential polls are not yet released. One of the key objectives of the
liberation struggle was attainment of the one person one vote dispensation.
Twenty eight years after independence our people are denied this basic
right. Our country is characterized by extreme illegitimacy where we have an
abrasive caretaker President and an illegally constituted Cabinet in cahoots
with an imbecilic and cynical military junta, running the affairs of our
country. There is heavy army and police presence in our major cities to
intimidate ordinary citizens. Opposition supporters are being brutalized and
killed in the rural areas under an unprecedented terror
campaign.

This is the state of our nation on Independence Day. It
is ironic that we should be celebrating the birth of our freedom in the
prevailing climate. What a travesty of justice, principle and national
interest!

Deconstructing the ZANU-PF
Strategy

There is a method to the ZANU-PF madness we have
witnessed in the last three weeks. Mugabe’s strategy is pure and simple:
Regain control of Parliament by criminal and crooked means, win a run-off
(or re-run) of the Presidential elections by using brute force and blatant
rigging, and thus control the Senate as well. As a result of these efforts,
ZANU-PF will be back in complete charge and control of all the three arms of
government; The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The second
phase of the strategy will then be to force and harangue a bludgeoned and
brutalized opposition into a so-called Government of National Unity. This is
the strategic plan.

Fellow citizens, make no mistake about
it. Mugabe now knows that he will never win a free and fair election in
Zimbabwe. The 29th of March made this predicament unequivocally clear.
Hence, if he agrees to any new election it is clear that he would have put
measures and systems in place to ensure his victory by any means necessary.
This is why participation or lack of it in any new election involving Robert
Mugabe is a huge decision conundrum for the opposition: Damned if you do,
damned if you don’t.

Let us further interrogate the ZANU-PF game
plan. What does Mugabe need to execute his evil strategy? Just a one word
answer would do: Time. The key resource that is essential to this regime is
time. All that the post election shenanigans have served to do is buy time
for the dictatorship to carry out the necessary intimidation and violence,
while putting the requisite rigging mechanisms in place. ZANU-PF strategists
know that after announcing the results they legally only have three weeks to
the run-off. They toyed around with the idea of demanding ninety days, but
dropped the proposition on realizing that they could not legally sustain it.
The tactic then adopted was to hold onto the results until they have done
most of the dirty work, and release the hung Presidential results when they
have only three weeks of evil steps to implement. A variation of the plan at
that stage is to allege gross and systematic patterns of misconduct and
irregularities, declare the Presidential elections null and void, and call
for a re-run instead of a run-off. Yes, Robert, we know what’s up. However,
we are glad that you also know what time it is.

In terms of
the House of Assembly, the agenda is to fraudulently seize at least 9 seats
from the opposition through recounts and court action leading to re-runs.
This explains the twenty-three recounts that ZEC has instituted. There is
clearly criminal collusion between ZEC and ZANU-PF. To add insult to injury,
this unholy marriage is dutifully consummated by a compliant and pliable
judiciary typified and exemplified by Judge Tendai Uchena’s unreasonable and
thoughtless decision not to order ZEC to release the Presidential
results.

For the record, the farce about hung Presidential
election results without a clear winner should be rejected with the contempt
that it deserves. Mugabe lost the election and Morgan Tsvangirai won with an
outright majority. What ZANU-PF has successfully done is to psychologically
prepare the nation for a false result through massive propaganda,
unmitigated lies and manipulative distortions. It is clear that ZANU-PF’s
keenness to portray the results as hung means that the results are the
opposite; i.e., we have an outright defeat of Robert Mugabe. It is shameful
that even regional leaders and the international community have been duped
by ZANU-PF’s big lie. All these discussions of run-off or re-run options are
testimony of, and submission to, the power of a duplicitous ZANU-PF. Mugabe
has won the psychological warfare.

It is sad that in all this
pervasion and destruction of the Zimbabwean national interest, the
illegitimate regime of Robert Mugabe has a partner in crime in the name of
the SA President. Yes, Mr. Mbeki there is a crisis in Zimbabwe. We are sick
and tired of your shameless antics. You clamour that Zimbabwe is not a
Province of South Africa, and yet you treat us worse than your mother’s
backyard. Whatever credibility and political capital you had left from
Polokwane, you are busy dissipating with reckless abandon. This is not how
one constructs a basis and rationale for the African Renaissance or New
Economic Partnership for Development. Shame on you Thabo Mbeki! Indeed our
cup of patience with you has run completely full. How can you be an
effective mediator between the Zimbabwean political parties when you show
such shameless duplicity, poor judgment and spinelessness? Zimbabwe and
Africa deserve better leadership than this.

Let us go to New
York. How can we have deafening silence on African matters by African
leaders at the UN, and leave our case to be articulated by Western leaders.
African solutions for African problems demand proactivity and ownership on
the part of the African. We must take charge of our lives and not abdicate
on our obligations to the continent. The SADC summit communiqué last Sunday
was too timid and apologetic. Hence it was ineffectual. What happened at the
UN this Wednesday is not only disgraceful but an affront to African
dignity. We must all hang our heads in shame.

The Appropriate
Response from the Opposition

On the 29th of March, the people
voted for change and against the status quo. The removal of Mugabe and his
fellow travelers was the issue, and nothing else. The voter’s tactical
decision was to elect those perceived to have the best chance of defeating
Mugabe. All democratic forces must acknowledge and respect this choice. What
is imperative is for all opposition parties to close ranks and make the
wishes of the Zimbabwean electorate a reality. In any run-off or re-run of
the Presidential Election the support for Morgan Tsvangirai should be total
and unconditional. There will be neither equivocation nor ambiguity on that
subject. He represents the change that Zimbabweans voted for. The people
spoke on the 29th of March. They seek no accommodation with the Dictator or
any of his manifestations. All democratic forces must stand with the people
in pursuit of the total annihilation of Robert Mugabe and all he stands
for.

Going forward, all opposition parties, in particular the two
MDC formations must work closely on all matters affecting the national
interest. They ought to cooperate in the way they tackle the current
political stalemate in our country. There is need to unlock and leverage the
collective wisdom, moral authority, bargaining power and numerical strength
that is unleashed by a cooperating and united opposition fraternity. History
will not absolve this generation of leaders if we falter on this agenda. In
fact, we will snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory.

Consequently, while the two MDC formations acknowledge
that they are two separate political parties, they must irrevocably agree
and undertake to work as one in the Legislature. In this regard they will
have one Chief Whip and a single Caucus. They will agree to vote together in
order to drive the transformational agenda in our country. There must be a
solid and binding coalition and co-operation agreement between the two MDC
formations. It is our intention it make it clear that our MPs will never
vote with the Dictator’s Party. We cannot work with criminals, economic
saboteurs and social deviants. Under no circumstances will we vote with
Robert Mugabe. Hell no, never, ever. Put simply, the opposition is now in
charge of Parliament with 109 MPs, period. That’s where the game is at
Robert. Get over it. The self-serving and speculative hallucination among
ZANU-PF apologists must stop. The opposition parties are united in their
total onslaught on the regime.

In a way, the people of
Zimbabwe and the opposition forces are underestimating the critical role and
power of the House of Representatives. This is probably because for the past
28 years it was rendered a docile and ineffectual institution due to its
domination by ZANU-PF. Now that we are in control of this legislative organ
of the State, let us demonstrate its true function and impact. The 110
opposition Members of Parliament (from the two MDC formations and the
Independent MP) must informally convene, immediately. They should elect the
Speaker, and outline a comprehensive agenda for the incoming Parliament.
Items that should be debated and adopted must include, but not limited to:
(1) Impeachment of the caretaker President, Robert Mugabe (2) Removal of
AIPPA and POSA (3) Establishment of processes for achieving a people-driven
democratic constitution (4) Immediate prosecution of public servants,
including military and police officers who are currently abusing their
authority (5) Establishment of processes to rationalize the land reform
program (6) Setting up of a Truth and Justice Commission for Gukurahundi and
Murambatsvina (7) Immediate removal from office, and criminal prosecution
of, the RBZ Governor, Gideon Gono (8) Dismantling and reconstitution of
ZEC.

Although this gathering of, and resolutions adopted by these
110 MPs will be informal, a framework for the terms of reference of the
formally convened House is thus created. As these MPs constitute the
majority they will use this informal platform to drive the Parliamentary
agenda. This will send shivers down the spines of that illegal cabal running
our country, as reality will suddenly sink in. The game is up! We need to
demonstrate that Mugabe has lost and that the people have won. Even without
the Presidential results we can unequivocally say that the Zimbabwean
political landscape will never be the same again. ZANU-PF understands what
has happened. They clearly appreciate the significance of their
Parliamentary loss. This is why they are busy trying to reverse their poor
fortunes through recounts and court actions. The opposition forces must both
outthink and outmaneuver these ZANU-PF losers who are running all over the
place like headless chickens.

Conclusion

In
the history of every nation there comes a time when a generation has a
unique opportunity to break with the past and define a new direction. Such a
momentous occasion currently presents itself in our country. We need to
seize the time and deliver change. This requires putting national interest
before partisan, sectoral and personal interests. It demands that we apply
our minds and outthink the regime. What Mugabe has lost in the electoral
battle, he cannot legitimately regain in any election remotely described as
free and fair. He is fatally and mortally wounded. The veil of invincibility
has been pierced. On the 29th of March 2008 the people voted for change, and
that democratic choice must be defended. Our independence will be
meaningless without the sanctity and integrity of the one person one vote
principle. Those that rule our country must do so with the consent of the
governed.

If a run-off or re-run is illegally imposed upon
us, the first order of business is challenging and exposing the illegitimacy
of the basis of that proposition. More than ever, it becomes imperative for
all the progressive and democratic forces in the country to close ranks in
pursuit of the collective national interest. We must seek to establish a
peaceful and secure environment for those illegitimate polls. In addition to
observation SADC, the AU and the international community must be allowed to
supervise these particular elections; before, during and after the voting
process. The mandate of the external players must include the verification
and announcement of the results. Yes, the regime has behaved worse than East
Timor. We now need international supervision. Consequently, the notion of
regional sovereignty and the doctrine of international responsibility to
protect must now take precedence over Mugabe’s narrow definition of national
sovereignty. We have lost the right to manage our affairs alone internally.
We need help.

However, Zimbabwean citizens will be the key
drivers of this revolution. The power is in our hands. Let us stand up and
be masters of our destiny. On this occasion of our Independence Day, let us
rededicate ourselves to meaningful and total political and economic
independence. The people should govern. The people must
prosper.

Zimbabwe’s Political Crisis Enters South Africa Domestic
Politics

VOA

By Peter ClotteyWashington, D.C.17
April 2008

The ongoing political crisis in Zimbabwe is
reportedly causing ripples in neighboring South Africa. This comes after
South African President Thabo Mbeki sharply differed with chairman of the
ruling African National Congress (ANC) Jacob Zuma over the crisis in
Zimbabwe. Mbeki said there was no crisis in Zimbabwe because of the
elections controversy.

But Zuma reportedly said the political impasse
over the elections was causing increasing anxiety. The ANC youth wing
apparently agrees with Zuma’s comments, saying that President Mbeki does not
speak on behalf of the ruling ANC party. Zizi Kodwa is the spokesman for the
ANC youth wing. He tells reporter Peter Clottey from London, where he is
attending a meeting, that it behooves Zimbabweans to resolve the ongoing
political impasse.

“Firstly, in the resolution of the Zimbabwean problem
and challenges it rests, among others, with the Zimbabweans themselves. We
think that all parties involved, both the ruling party and the opposition
party, must come together and appreciate the fact that indeed the country
has reached a point where everybody must cooperate for the good of the
country. It is absolutely not going to help now to point fingers and start
accusing one another, who is responsible for what. Indeed we need men and
women who can rise above and swallow their pride for the good of the
country,” Kodwa pointed out.

He said all parties concerned in Zimbabwe
must uphold the tenets of democracy and respect the wishes of the
people.

“Obviously, issues of democracy to an extend that they are
respected and upholding of the rule of law. It is critical for any democracy
to succeed. And the recent development is worrying to an extent that the
expression of the majority shall be subverted from the people by people who
might appear, but democratically they don’t accept the outcome because as it
stands now. It is likely to create instability in the whole region,” he
said.

Kodwa said it is only the chairman and other elected officials of
the ruling ANC party who can speak on behalf of the party.

“In
resolving the problem of Zimbabwe, Thabo Mbeki is not speaking on behalf of
the ANC. He is a mediator mandated by the regional body SADC (Southern
African Development Community). The ANC is a political liberation movement.
It is important to understand that. It has got its own voice, and Thabo
Mbeki does not speak on behalf of that organization. So there is no conflict
of expression about how the issue of Zimbabwe must be resolved,” Kodwa
noted.

He said there was a need for the presidential results of
Zimbabwe’s election to be released.

“First and foremost, after its
elections, people would have expected that the election results must be
announced. We can’t be talking about a re-run or run-off even before people
would know how t hey voted. That is equal to subversion of democracy and
manipulation, even if people don’t agree with the outcome, but they cannot
be manipulated because of narrow political interest. If the expression and
the will of the people is against those who are in power, let it be so. And
I think everybody who had participated in a democratic election would have
expected to win or lose. It is not a pre-determined outcome,” he noted.

Brown treats Zimbabwe like British colony - minister

Reuters

Thu 17
Apr 2008, 5:33 GMT

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's justice minister accused
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Thursday of treating Zimbabwe like a
British colony and suggested London bribed election officials to oust
President Robert Mugabe.

Patrick Chinamasa also said that opposition
leader Morgan Tsvangirai -- who says he won a March 29 presidential election
-- was committing treason by working with Britain to prompt "regime
change".

On Wednesday, Brown called on a summit of the U.N. Security
Council and the African Union to support democracy and human rights for
Zimbabwe. "No one thinks, having seen the results of polling stations, that
President Mugabe has won," he said.

Chinamasa said in a statement
published by Zimbabwean state media that Brown had spoken so strongly in
order to promote British interests in Zimbabwe, undermine Zimbabwe's
electoral processes and mislead the international community.

"We tell
him (Brown) clearly and without ambiguity that we are not a colony of the
British," he said.

The Herald newspaper also quoted Chinamasa as saying
that Tsvangirai's declaration of victory in the election was part a British
plot to destabilise Zimbabwe. He urged the electoral authorities to find
those polling officials who he said were "corruptly paid British pounds to
tamper with the process".

"The unofficial results ... point to a
run-off between President Mugabe and Tsvangirai," he was quoted as
saying.

The Herald newspaper also published details of what it said was a
letter from Brown to Tsvangirai assuring the MDC leader that Britain had
lobbied Southern African Development Community (SADC) members to convene an
urgent summit on Zimbabwe and that London would impose more sanctions on the
country.

There was no immediate comment on this from Tsvangirai's
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) or from British
officials.

Chinamasa was quoted as saying: "It is clear from the
correspondence that Tsvangirai along with Brown are seeking regime change in
Zimbabwe, and on the part of Tsvangirai, this is treasonous."

"There
is no doubting the consequences for acting in a treasonous manner,"
Chinamasa said.

"The British are driving an agenda to put their
puppet at the helm of this country ... The people of Zimbabwe will not allow
this country to be taken over by a British surrogate."

African leaders’ attitude on elections must
change

Zimbabwe Times17 April 2008

By Tanonoka Joseph Whande

THERE is a crisis in
Zimbabwe!

South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki is at the very end of his second and
last term in office. He has spent most of the past 10 years of his
presidency engaged in Zimbabwean issues because of the crisis that has been
festering in that country for a very long time.

He came up with the
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and set standards, among
which was good governance. But NEPAD folded three days ago and Mbeki had to
let go of a failure he created. The comedy continues, though; NEPAD is now
to be run by the African Union.

Several years ago, Mbeki introduced
‘quiet diplomacy’ on Zimbabwe as a way of covering for Robert Mugabe’s
excesses. Mbeki failed to bring sanity to Zimbabwean politics. Last year,
SADC rewarded Mbeki’s failure with another mandate to resolve the Zimbabwean
crisis. He accepted and, apparently, went to work.

A few months
later, the Movement for Democratic Change wrote to SADC officially notifying
the useless body that their emissary, Mbeki, had failed to resolve the
crisis and that the talks had long broken down.

Two weeks ago, the world
was jolted to attention when newly crowned Botswana President Ian Khama
caused Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa, the SADC Chairman, to convene an
extra-ordinary session to discuss the Zimbabwean crisis because, according
to President Khama, “we have a problem”.

Mwanawasa said the purpose of
the extra-ordinary summit was “to discuss the recent events in Zimbabwe
following the elections in Zimbabwe in an open, objective and honest
manner.” In this regard, he said, SADC re-affirmed its commitment “to assist
the parties to deal with the current situation”.

In its communiqué, SADC
itself said that the extra-ordinary summit was held in line with “the SADC's
objectives to promote common political values and systems transmitted
through institutions that are democratic, legitimate and effective to
facilitate the consolidation of democracy, peace, security and
stability.”

But SADC went on to imply, through its retrogressive and
cowardly decision, that Khama was wrong. According to SADC, Khama and the
region have no problem. According to Mbeki, Zimbabwe has no
crisis.Instead of censuring the culprit and encouraging crisis resolution in
the region, SADC stood by a murderous dictator at the expense of a young
president who wanted things corrected as a matter of urgency.

Mbeki,
the perennial failure in mediation assignments, stood between fellow
presidents and the restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe.Yet, not
surprisingly, by the end of the summit, Mbeki accepted yet another mandate
to resolve the “crisis in Zimbabwe”.

After accepting to assist in
resolving the Zimbabwean crisis three times, Mbeki says there is no crisis
in Zimbabwe. But everyone, including his own ANC, knows that there is a
crisis in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabweans voted peacefully and made their choice as
the world and SADC watched. Even the Summit “commended the people of
Zimbabwe for their peaceful and orderly manner in which they conducted
themselves before, during and after the elections.”It is not in dispute
that Mugabe lost the election. The ongoing shenanigans are a clear testimony
to serious irregularities yet SADC did not come down hard on such bad
behaviour.

Africa, it seems, is unable to resolve its own
disputes.

Now, the body count has slowly started to build up because what
SADC did is to encourage the wrongdoer by not censuring him. Zimbabwe’s
military chief has ominously taken charge of Mugabe’s “campaign” and
Mugabe’s militant supporters have set up torture camps in the
country.

SW Radio Africa reported: “Post-election reprisals against MDC
activists have spread to nearly every corner of the country, amid reports
that the cycle of attacks and retributions are being orchestrated by
security forces.”

It went on to say that the violence had escalated
dramatically as ruling Zanu-PF party militias, “with the help of army
units”, had intensified their reprisal campaign in the rural
areas.

It’s Kenya all over again because of wrong priorities, because of
African leaders’ reluctance to urge losing presidential candidates to vacate
their posts because of, in the case of Mbeki, malicious detachment and
indifference to the suffering of the people.

The people of Kenya are
still stuck with a president who lost the election, thanks to Kofi
Annan.

After losing presidential elections and his parliamentary
majority, Kibaki refused to concede and, in the end, got a bigger piece of
the cake than the real winners. And now, thanks to Mbeki and SADC, Mugabe
feels that whatever Kibaki can do, he can do better.

SADC and Mbeki
ditched decency and honesty; they should be smiling now because they knew
violence would arise from their confused way of thinking.

SADC and Mbeki
let down the people of Zimbabweans and put people’s lives in danger. SADC is
going to be the first to seek donor funds to extinguish the conflagration
they themselves started. For how much longer can Zimbabweans hold back their
frustrations as they now believe that the world is conspiring against
them?

Because SADC and Mbeki are listening attentively to Mugabe like
kids on the first day of class, Mugabe rants and raves about a run-off
election yet the results that should determine such an exercise are being
held back. Rather than concede, Mugabe, with Mbeki’s conniving, refuses to
release the results of the final presidential vote count.

How do we
know that it was Mugabe who came in second? Could it not have been Simba
Makoni? But most importantly, is there any need for a run-off election? Are
we sure the winner did not surpass the 50% mark, as independent observers
are saying?

Africa is setting time bombs for itself everywhere
elections are held. Kenya and Zimbabwe are to consecutive election disgraces
that have set death traps for unsuspecting, trusting African
voters.

Mbeki has caused too much grief in the region.

“SADC
leaders have a duty to ensure that what happened recently in Kenya, when an
Electoral Commission failed to conduct the polls and ultimately led to
untold bloodbaths, does not happen in Zimbabwe,” said the Sunday Standard in
its current editorial. “The situation in Zimbabwe has become tense and
increasingly volatile. Chances of Zimbabwe further slipping into a civil war
or a military coup are everyday becoming a reality. Yet many of the SADC
leaders, especially those who have a muscle strong enough to influence
events in that country, like South Africa, choose not to
intervene.”

Calling Mbeki a “rogue democrat”, the Post said, “South
Africa has defended Iran's nuclear programme and resisted sanctions against
it; shielded Sudan and Burma from the sort of pressure the United Nations
once directed at the apartheid regime; and enthusiastically supported
one-sided condemnations of Israel by the U.N. Human Rights
Council.”

Also in an editorial this past Tuesday, Botswana’s Mmegi
questioned if Thabo Mbeki is really still in touch with reality, saying that
Mbeki has always forced his discredited ‘quiet diplomacy’ approach on fellow
SADC members “with devastating effect”.

“Any sane person cannot help
but agree with MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, that "unless, of course, they
(Mbeki and friends) say the crisis should be demonstrated by bodies on the
streets." However, the way the situation stands, there is no doubt that soon
there will be a bloodbath in Zimbabwe.”

So what does this mean to the
citizens of SADC who, as the Gazette said in its current editorial, are
probably saying to themselves, “Are we going to be the next refugees and
displaced persons when our leaders refuse to relinquish power and punish
those who have voted against them?”

SADC has denied Zimbabweans a chance
to rebuild their nation. What is the whole SADC block about anyway if they
cannot recognize problems in their own midst and act on them to protect the
citizenry?

Yes, there is a crisis in Zimbabwe and if Zimbabwe erupts,
Botswana, South Africa and the region will pay a heavy price. They will be
embroiled in it and it will not be easy to manage.

President Ian
Khama, however, should be applauded for trying.There is a crisis in
Zimbabwe.

Speak up now Nelson

The Mirror. UK

Brian Reade 17/04/2008Amid
the global outrage at Robert Mugabe changing Zimbabwe's national anthem to
his own mobile phone ringtone: "I'm the king of the castle, get down you
dirty rascals," there is a disturbing silence.And I don't understand it.
Who is the greatest living freedom fighter? The one African who has earned
worldwide respect for challenging organised evil?

Who spent his life
opposing a regime which played the race card to keep a people in chains?
Nelson Mandela.

Mugabe has betrayed everything Mandela fought and stands
for. He has overwhelmingly brutalised, tortured and slaughtered the black
people of Zimbabwe to cling to power, and now he denies them their
democratic right to express their will.

Advertisement

If
Desmond Tutu's brave condemnation of Mugabe shames the cowardly inaction of
South African president Thabo Mbeki, how much does Mandela's silence taint
his own legacy?

In July the world will celebrate the 90th birthday of the
world's premier citizen. There are plans for a London concert to mark the
life of a man who freed his people.

What a ser vice he would do
mankind if he ditched any misguided loyalty to Mugabe and demanded a Free
Zimbabwe campaign .

It would be the last courageous act of the greatest
man we've seen in our lifetime. And it needs to be done .

Here are some details on Zimbabwe's
inflation milestones and government efforts to control
it.

INFLATION'S RISE

-- Zimbabwe's annual inflation rose above
1,000 percent in April 2006. Official statistics showed the annual inflation
rate at a record 1,042.9 percent after rising 913.6 percent in
March.

-- Annualized inflation stood at 3,713.9 percent in April 2007, a
monthly rate of increase of 100.7 percent, according to official government
data.

-- Inflation slowed in August to 6,592.8 percent from 7,634.8 in
July after a price freeze was instituted, but leapt to a record 7,982.1
percent in September.

-- The December 2007 figure had risen to
66,212.3 percent, and by January 2008 it hit 100,586 percent but economic
experts said the actual figure was higher.

-- April 2008, the Central
Statistics Office reported that for the month of February 2008, the figure
stood at 164,900.3 percent.

REACTION

-- When inflation hit 1,000
in 2006, Zimbabwe was in its eighth year of recession and had the fastest
shrinking economy outside a war zone, according to the World Bank. It also
had the highest inflation rate in the world.

-- Some shops began
leaving prices off commodities, saving themselves the trouble of changing
them every day. With a carton of orange juice then costing 500,000 Zimbabwe
dollars (US $5) and 1 kg of beef up to Z$1 million, people carried money in
large bags even for simple shopping trips.

-- The Reserve Bank of
Zimbabwe (RBZ) ordered redenominated notes in July 2006 to combat black
marketeering and hyperinflation, lopping three zeros off the local
dollar.

-- The government instituted a price freeze in June 2007,
followed two months later by wage freeze to try to tame inflation.

--
Zimbabwe's central bank introduced new higher value banknotes earlier in
2008 which, however, failed to ease a cash shortage that has kept commercial
banks busy with long queues of desperate residents wanting to withdraw
money.

HOW BAD CAN IT GET?

-- Drought in several Zimbabwean
provinces is likely to damage the main 2008 maize harvest and could worsen
an already tight food situation, the United Nations' food agency
said.

-- The agency said on top of floods and drought, farmers have
suffered from shortages of key inputs, including fertilizer, seed, fuel and
tillage power this season.

(Writing by David Cutler, London Editorial
Reference Unit; editing by Mary Gabriel)

Lonrho to take the plunge in Zimbabwe

Lonrho, unlike some
South African companies, is stepping up investments in Zimbabwe rather than
waiting until the political situation is resolved.

LonZim - the company
Lonrho has formed to develop business opportunities in Zimbabwe - plans to
make the country a centre for an Africa-wide communications system "aimed at
making financial transactions possible for the massive unbanked sector of
Africa".

LonZim chief executive Geoffrey White said Zimbabwe's economic
fundamentals remained strong. The country had an educated workforce and a
good infrastructure.

Lonrho is buying an option to acquire a 51
percent stake in ForgetMeNot Africa (FMN Africa), a subsidiary of Hong
Kong-based software company ForgetMeNot, which specialises in two-way global
messaging across Africa.

The consideration of US$150 000 (R1.2 million)
paid for the option will be used by FMN to introduce its message optimiser
system to two large corporate customers in Zimbabwe.

LonZim has the
option to acquire control of FMN Africa for a further US$400 000. It will
pay a further $1 million on December 30 for an exclusive licence to use
FMN's message optimiser technology across Africa.

White said the system
could operate from cellphones or computers, and could be used for
transactions such as credit, bill payment and transfers.

When the time arrives for Zimbabwe to start
over

Business Day

17 April 2008

Max du Plessis and Jo
Ford

WHAT
lessons about justice and accounting for the past can Zim-babweans learn
from other transitional societies? Where “forgive and forget” seems
unlikely, is there a case for a deliberative formal national process of
remembering, dwelling, telling, uncovering, admitting, accusing,
apologising? In going forward, to what extent should Zimbabweans be
concerned with looking back?

The Mugabe regime is certainly not
yet history. But only the pessimists would deny some foreseeable future
transitional arrangement. How might Zimbabweans then deal with past
systematic and widespread human rights abuses?

Experience in SA,
and in places such as Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Timor-Leste , Cambodia
and Sierra Leone, shows three main ways to address past wrongs: criminal
trials, truth-for-amnesty commissions, and a mix of
these.

Others’ experience prompts a range of difficult initial
questions for Zimbabwe: in any interim phase, how will negotiations on
“transitional justice” persuade the powerful and prosecutable that it is
safe to co-operate? How do we balance the need for “restorative justice”
with solemn principles pointing to criminal trials and “retributive
justice”?

With the economy in free fall, what priority of resources
and national attention should a backward-looking process have? How far back
does “the past” really go? Is there a role for outsiders and if not, who in
Zimbabwe would have the moral authority to guide any process?

A
great deal would be at stake. Prosecutions alone, even if politically
possible, do not necessarily achieve reconciliation or reduce tension. A
truth commission in a new Zimbabwe might be cathartic and promote
reconciliation, lifting the lid on human rights abuses, ending denial,
allowing victims to tell their stories and reclaim their dignity: a national
healing process. On the other hand, done poorly a commission could squander
precious time, money and perhaps a once-only opportunity. It could itself
become a focus of renewed conflict, or antagonise influential persons upon
whose co-operation national unity depends, or focus only on small fry,
leaving big fish to swim free.

Every country situation is unique
but lessons from elsewhere abound: we should not recognise any eventual
Zimbabwean institution that is not independent or credible. The process of
commission member selection, their stature and impartiality, are
vital.

International tribunals often lack local awareness and legitimacy:
a hybrid model would be ideal (some African nationals should be among any
international staff). The institution must be adequately resourced. It needs
to give incentives to people to co-operate, but must not rule out criminal
prosecutions. It must have a realistic mandate, allowing it to initiate
investigations as well as receive complaints. Victims must have a central
role. It may have an educational mandate. It should start its work soon
after any transition (although a drawn-out design process can increase
public awareness and legitimacy). It could wind up after two to three years,
or be a permanent body with a gradually narrowing mandate that ultimately
runs as a self-funding museum.

Very public hearings and
broadcasts are preferable: this increases public appreciation of such
commissions’ work and prevents continued denial by sectors of society.
Public hearings shift the focus from a mere product (a report), to the
process itself. The commission may make important reform recommendations.
Other, community-level, processes need to also run in parallel: a national
conversation about the past, but in the language of the future. Finally, a
report needs to be made public, and publicly digestible: it needs to attempt
“closure” while not artificially cutting off debate.

Amnesty from
prosecution is often the main incentive for revealing the truth. Any
Zimbabwean commission ought to be given such power, avoiding blanket
amnesties (amnesty for international crimes such as torture could not be
contemplated). As with the Timor-Leste model, amnesties could co-exist with
prosecutions for the worst offences; that is, the process facilitates
community reintegration of low-level perpetrators (often with some visible
act of remorse, contrition or reparation), while not precluding trials of
those responsible for serious abuses. In Solomon Islands, by contrast, the
preference was to strengthen courts and pursue prosecutions, leaving
reconciliation mechanisms to informal, church-based and community processes.
The idea of a formal truth and reconciliation commission was thought to send
mixed messages about future responsibility for ethnic
violence.

Particular difficulties apply in Zimbabwe. How would
such a process deal, if at all, with land claims? Should any commission deal
with abuse allegations arising from Mugabe’s 1980s Gukurahundi campaign in
Matabeleland, or should it restrict itself to the period after 2000?
Findings of an official 1985 inquiry into Matabeleland were never published,
though the 1997 Breaking the Silence, Building True Peace report by a
Catholic Church body suggests serious matters to resolve. What is the status
in law of the official blanket amnesty given by Mugabe in October 2000? What
about calls for international prosecutions? Matters are complicated by the
fact that Zimbabwe is not party to the International Criminal Court, and the
United Nations Security Council is unlikely to refer any matter for
prosecution.

South Africans understand that deep wounds need to be
cleaned and aired, not simply bound up: out of sight is not out of
collective mind. It is often overlooked that in 1980 Zimbabweans — led by
Mugabe’s example — were seen as paragons of national reconciliation. Perhaps
when a new dawn comes to Zimbabweans, they may rediscover the balance
between forward momentum and adequate pause on past injustices. For many
victims, no new truth will emerge: but formal acknowledgment of their truth
can be vital in the shared healing process. If the cost of remembering is
pain, the price of not confronting and institutionalising the memories can
be cycles of distrust and shaky foundations: a future condemned to repeat,
and always held ransom to, the unresolved past.

Du Plessis is
an associate professor of law at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and a
senior research associate at the Institute for Security Studies. Ford is
with the Centre for International Governance & Justice at the Australian
National University.

Court Judgement in Full

Zimbabwe:
Harare High CourtMovement for Democratic Change and Another v Chairperson of
the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and Others (E/P 24/08) [2008] ZWHHC 1 (14
April 2008)

MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE AND

MORGAN
TSVANGIRAI VERSUS

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
AND

THE CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
m

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE UCHENA J

HARARE 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
AND 14 APRIL 2008.

HH —/08

E/P
24/08

URGENT CHAMBER
APPLICATION

Mr A Muchadehama, for the Applicant's.

Mr
G Chikumbirike, for the Respondents.

Uchena J.
The 1st applicant the Movement For Democratic Change is a political party,
commonly known as the (MDC). It will be referred to as the 1st applicant.
The second applicant Mr Morgan Tsvangirai is its president. He was the 1st
applicant's presidential candidate in the just ended harmonized elections
held on the 29th March 2008. He will be referred to as the 2nd
applicant.

The 1st respondent is the Chairman of the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission, a Commission created in terms of section 61 (1) of the
Constitution of Zimbabwe. He was appointed in terms of section 61 (1) (a) of
the Constitution. He will be referred to as the 1st respondent. The
Commission is commonly known as (ZEC), in reference to the abbreviation of
its name. I will refer to it by its abbreviation in this judgment. The
second respondent is (ZEC'S) chief elections officer appointed in terms of
section 11 of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act (Chapter 12; 12),
hereinafter called the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act. He will be
referred to as the 2nd respondent.

The
Facts

The 1st respondent through (ZEC), conducted harmonised
elections which were held on 29 March 2008. The elections were contested by
candidates aspiring for the following positions, councilors of local
authorities, members of the House of Assembly and the Senate, and President
of the Republic of Zimbabwe. It is common cause that the contestants of the
first three positions now know the results of their elections. The results
were announced at the Ward Constituency, House of Assembly and Senatorial
constituency levels. The winners were declared by the respective Ward and
Constituency Elections officers. House of Assembly and Senatorial results
have also been announced by the National Collation Centre presided over by
the 2nd respondent. It is conceded by the respondents that this was merely
for the benefit of the general public as the legal requirements had been
satisfied at constituency level.

The applicants who have
an interest in the presidential elections, in which they were participants,
filed an urgent application seeking this court's provisional order,
compelling the respondents to announce the
results.

The respondents while conceding that
presidential results have not yet been announced contented that they will
announce them when they are ready. They contented, in, limine that, they are
not subject to the jurisdiction of this court.

After the
court's ruling on the issue of jurisdiction Mr Muchadehama for the
applicants submitted that the application was urgent and outlined the facts
establishing the urgency. In his response, Mr Chikumbirike, for the
respondents, submitted that the application is not urgent, and should have
been brought by way of ordinary
application.

Jurisdiction

On
the 6th April 2008, before the hearing of this case on the merits Mr
Chikumbirike for the respondents submitted that this court did not have
jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application. He relied on the
provisions of section 61 (5) of the Constitution which provides as
follows;

(5) "The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission shall not, in the
exercise of its functions in terms of subsection (4), be subject to the
direction or control of any person or authority."

The
relevant provisions of subsection (4) to this application are found in
subsection (4) (1) (a) which reads;

(4) "The Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission shall have the following functions-

(a) to prepare for,
conduct and supervise—

i. elections to the office of President and to
Parliament; and

ii. elections to the governing bodies of local
authorities; and

iii. referendums;

and to ensure that those
elections and referendums are conducted efficiently, freely, fairly,
transparently and in accordance with the law;"

Mr
Chikumbirike said this court has no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's
complaint, and should therefore dismiss the application with
costs.

Mr Muchadehama for the applicants submitted that the
respondents can be sued and that is why section 18 of the Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission Act provides for the citing of the 1st respondent, as a nominal
citee. He further submitted that the court has jurisdiction to inquire into
any complaint against the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission provided that it
observes (ZEC'S) independence if it is complying with the provisions of the
law. He further submitted that this court can intervene if the respondents
stray from the provisions of the law. I agree with Mr Muchadehama's
submissions as it could never have been intended by the legislature, that
(ZEC) could conduct itself outside the provisions of the law including the
provisions of section (4) of the Constitution itself, and still remain
outside the jurisdiction of this court.

The clear
intention of the Legislature in Section 61 (5) of the Constitution was to
ensure (ZEC'S) independence provided it was operating within the law. It has
to exercise its functions as provided by subsection (4) for it to enjoy that
immunity. It can not for example conduct elections unfairly, outside the
law, and which are not free and fair, but on being sued insist that the
courts have no jurisdiction over it. The court would in such circumstances
have jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints against
(ZEC).

It was for these reasons that I ruled that this
court has jurisdiction to hear the applicant's
application.

Urgency

After the ruling on
the issue of jurisdiction, Mr Muchadehama made submissions on the urgency of
the application. He told the court that section 110 (3) of the Electoral Act
(Chapter 12; 13) hereinafter called the Electoral Act, provides, for a
re-run within 21 days after the previous election in the event of no
candidate obtaining a clear majority in the election. This he submitted
means a delay in announcing the election results will deprive candidates of
sufficient time to prepare for the re-run. He also pointed out that the
respondents would not have enough time to prepare for the
re-run.

Mr Chikumbirike for the applicants said there was no
urgency in the applicant's application because its cause of action was based
on the announcement of the results of the presidential poll. He argued, that
those results where not due, as the provisions of the second schedule have
not yet been complied with. He therefore reasoned that the cause of action
would arise when the provisions of the second schedule of the Electoral Act
would have been complied with. He summed up by saying the applicant's cause
of action as stated in Tendai Biti's founding affidavit has not yet arisen
hence the absence of urgency in the application.

Mr
Muchadehama in response disputed Mr Chikumbirike's submission that the cause
of action had not yet risen. He pointed out that Tendai Biti's affidavit
complaints of delays and the respondent's wasting time on already declared
election results instead of doing what they are mandated to do, that is the
collation and verification of presidential results and their
announcement.

A reading of Tendai Biti's founding
affidavit confirms that though he in some paragraphs emphasised the
announcement of results he clearly brought out a case against the general
delay. That was in fact the theme of the applicant's complaint in paragraphs
5, 11,12,13, 14,16,17, 24,26 and 27.1 am therefore satisfied that the
applicant's application is premised on delays and the respondents' wasting
time doing everything else other than what they should have been doing.
Therefore the cause of action has arisen though the wording of the
provisional draft order seeks the announcement of results within 4 hours of
the service of it on the respondents. This can be corrected by a variation
in terms of rule 246 (2) of the High Court Rules 1971 which provides as
follows;-

(2) "Where in an application for a provisional order, the judge
is satisfied that the papers establish a prima facie case he shall grant a
provisional order either in terms of the draft filed or as
varied."

This means an application for a provisional order
which has been prima facie proved can not be dismissed because of a poorly
drafted order. The court can vary it and grant a correctly formulated
provisional order consistent with the prima facie case proved. In fact on
being granted the order becomes the court's order so it must formulate it in
a satisfactory manner before granting it.

I therefore
found that the application was urgent and proceeded to hear it on the
merits.

Procedural Issues

In response to Mr Muchadehama's
submissions on the merits, Mr Chikumbirike for the respondents raised
several procedural issues which he should have raised as preliminary issues.
He in his first procedural issue contented that the applicant's application
was not made in the correct form. Mr Muchadehama for the applicants in reply
submitted that the applicant's application was made in the correct form and
that even if it was not in the correct form, Rule 229C provides that such
failure shall not in itself be a ground for dismissing the application. The
court can however dismiss such an application, if it has caused prejudice to
the other party which can not be cured by directions for service of the
application on the other party with or without an order of costs. An
examination of the applicant's application reveals that it is in form 29B
when it should be in form 29 with relevant modifications as provided by the
proviso to rule 241 (2). The applicants have however, not suffered any
prejudice. They were served with the application and they took no issue
until during their Counsel's response on the merits.Even though the issue
was raised no prejudice was alleged. I am satisfied that nothing turns on
this as either rule 229C or rule 4C could be resorted to, to condone the
application's failure to strictly comply with the proviso to rule 241
(2).

In his second procedural issue Mr Chikumbirike raised
the issue of the applicants not having filed an answering affidavit. He
submitted that, that means the applicants have accepted the respondent's
averments in the opposing affidavit. Mr Muchadehama's response was that most
of the issues had already been put in contention by the applicant's founding
affidavit deposed to by Tendai Biti. That may be so in respect of the delay
and aspects related to it. It is however not correct in respect of the
reason for the delay averred to in Justice Chiweshe's opposing affidavit
Justice Chiweshe said the delay is due to (ZEC) having received complaints
about miscounting and is considering the evidence for it to decide whether
or not to order a recount of the presidential votes before announcing the
results. The failure to file an answering affidavit disputing that fact
means the fact that complains have been received is not in dispute. However
the legality of the recount can still be challenged as it is a matter of
law.

Mr Chikumbirike in his third procedural issue raised the
issue of the second applicant not having filed any affidavit. He submitted
that he should have filed a founding affidavit or at least a supporting
affidavit verifying the averments made on his behalf by the 1st applicant's
deponent. Mr Muchadehama's response was to the effect that the averment by
Tendai Biti that he was authorized to depose to the founding affidavit by
the second applicant, is sufficient. Mr Muchadehama relied on rule 227 (4)
(a) which provides as follows-

(4) "An affidavit filed with a written
application -

(a) shall be made by the applicant or respondent, as the
case may be, or by a person who can swear to the facts or averments set out
in therein" There is no dispute that Tendai Biti is the Secretary General of
the 1st applicant and can swear positively to issues involving the 1st and
2nd applicants as regards events which took place in connection with the
announcement of presidential results. The issues in this case are purely
party maters and the 2nd applicant being the 1st applicant's presidential
candidate is merely joined not because he has issues for which he has
separate and distinct information which the 1st applicant's Secretary
General is not privy to. I would therefore find that nothing turns on this
issue. The affidavit filed by Tendai Biti satisfies the requirements of rule
227 (4).

Mr Chikumbirike in his fourth procedural issue
raised the issue of paragraph (1) of the draft provisional order seeking the
same relief as that sought in paragraph (1) of the final order. Mr
Muchadehama conceded that point and sought a variation of the provisional
order so that it does not seek the same relief as that in the final order.
This issue has already been dealt with in my ruling on the issue of
urgency.

Mr Chikumbirike's final procedural issue was on what
he alleged was an improper joinder of the 1st and 2nd respondents. He
submitted that the 1st respondent plays no roll in the processing and
announcement of presidential results, and should therefore not have been
joined with the 2nd respondent in these proceedings. Mr Muchadehama in his
reply correctly submitted that the 1st respondent was correctly cited in his
nominal capacity as the Chairman of (ZEC). Section 18 of the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission Act provides for his being a nominal citee, just as the
Minister of Home Affairs would be cited together with a Constable who would
have committed a delict during the course of his duties. I find no merit in
Mr Chikumbirike's submission on this issue, especially in view _ of Justice
Chiweshe's concession that there was no issue on the citation of the
parties. The applicant in his opposing affidavit said the Commision received
complaints about miscounting of the presidential votes which it is
considering with a view to ordering a recount before those results are
announced. This clearly confirms the importance of citing the 1st respondent
as a party as it is the commission which is considering the
complaints.

The second respondent can not deal with that
issue, and can not process the presidential results until that issue is
resolved. The 1st respondent has therefore been correctly cited as a party
in these proceedings.

The
Merits

On the merits the applicants, contented through Tendai
Biti's founding affidavit dated the 3rd April 2008, that there has been an
unreasonable delay in the processing and announcement of presidential
results. They submitted that the harmonised elections having been held on
the 29th March 2008, the results for the presidential poll should have been
announced. They accused the respondents of employing delaying tactics by
announcing the already declared results for the House of Assembly and the
Senate. They submitted that the respondents were thereby avoiding their
primary responsibility. They explained the procedure which should have been
followed and said it should not have taken long to collate, verify and
announce the results. They submitted that the procedure to be followed
signifies the Legislature's intention that the results of the poll must be
processed and be announced without any undue delays.

On
the main issue of delays Mr Chikumbirike for the respondents submitted that,
the respondents had not strayed from what the electoral laws require them to
do. They can therefore, not be compelled to release the results when they
were operating within the law. He said there was no provision in the
Electoral Act requiring the respondents to collate, verify and announce the
results in a specified period. He therefore argued the respondents were
entitled to act at their own discretion, but in terms of the electoral
laws.

Provisions of the electoral laws and their
interpretation

The question of whether or not the respondents
are operating within the law can only be determined after an analysis of the
provisions of sections of the Electoral Act which deal with the transmission
of presidential results from polling stations through constituency centres
to the Chief Elections Officer.

Section 64 (2) of the
Electoral Act provides for the transmission of the polling station return as
follows;

(2) "Immediately after affixing a polling station return on the
outside of the polling station in terms of subsection (1) (e), the presiding
officer shall personally transmit to the constituency elections officer for
the constituency to which the polling station belongs-

(a)

(b)
the poling-station return certified by himself or herself to be correct:
Provided that if, by reason of death, injury or illness, the presiding
officer is unable personally to transmit the ballot box, packets, statement
and polling station return under this subsection, a polling officer who was
on duty at the polling station shall personally transmit these"

It is
clear from the provisions of this section that poling station-returns and
other election results material must be urgently and under the personal care
of the presiding officer be send to the constituency elections officer. Even
the death, injury or illness of the presiding officer is not allowed to
delay the transmission of the polling station-returns and other election
result materials to the constituency elections officer. The presidential
polling station-return is part of the material to be urgently
transmitted.

The Second Schedule to the Electoral Act in
paragraph 1 (1) and (2) provides for the further handling and transmission
of presidential results. It provides-

(1) "After the number of votes
received by each candidate as shown in each polling -station return has been
added together in terms of subparagraph (i) of subsection (3) of section
sixty-five and the resulting figure added to the number of postal votes
received by each candidate, the constituency elections officer shall
forthwith-

1.. record on the constituency return the votes obtained by
each candidate and the number of rejected ballot papers in such a manner
that the results of the count for each polling station are shown on the
return;

2.. display the completed constituency return to those present
and afford each candidate or his or her election agent the opportunity to
subscribe their signature thereto; and

3.. transmit to the Chief
Elections Officer by hand through a messenger the constituency return or a
copy thereof certified by the constituency elections officer to be
correct.

(2) Immediately after arranging for the constituency return to
be transmitted in terms of paragraph ( c) of subparagraph (1), the
constituency elections officer shall affix a copy of the constituency return
on the outside of the constituency centre so that it is visible to the
public." The provisions of paragraph 1 of the second schedule clearly
express the urgency with which the constituency return has to be transmitted
to the (second respondent) the Chief Elections Officer. A reading of
subparagraph (1) ( c) and subparagraph (2) reveals the urgency through the
use of the word "immediately" and the fact that the affixing of the
constituency return outside the constituency centre can only be attended to
after the Constituency Elections officer has arranged for the transmission
of the constituency return to the Chief Elections
officer.

The question that has to be answered is why should
these returns be hurriedly transmitted from polling stations and
constituency centres, if the legislature did not expect the Chief Elections
Officer to equally attend to them without delay? The inquiry must be taken
to the next and subsequent stages of the
process.

Paragraph 2 (1) of the second schedule
provides-

(1) "The Chief Elections Officer shall give reasonable notice
in writing to each candidate or his or her chief election agent of the time
and place where the Chief Elections Officer will verify and collate all the
constituency returns" Mr Chikumbirike seems to rely on this paragraph for
the absolute discretion he claims for the respondents. It is true no time
within which the noticeshall be given is specified, but

does it mean
the 2" respondent was intended to take whatever time he deemed necessary
before inviting the candidates for the collation and verification of the
constituency returns. An analysis of paragraph 2(1) seems to reveal that the
apparent relaxation of the urgency previously insisted on in the preceding
sections and paragraphs could be for the benefit of the invitees. The Chief
Elections Officer must await their arrival before the collation and
verification starts. Even if that was the intention of the legislature he
could have been required to invite them forth with or immediately. It must
be noted that these returns will be transmitted by hand from all
constituencies scattered through out the country. They are transmitted by
hand. The distance between each constituency centre and the National
Collation Centre determines the arrival of each return. The legislature
could in those circumstances have provided for urgency soon after the
receipt of the last return. The fact that it did not leaves its intention
unclear. However in the construction of statutes the intention of the
legislature can be ascertained from the context within which the provision
in question is found. This part of the second schedule should therefore be
construed in conformity with the whole schedule and other provisions of the
Electoral Act. The inquiry must therefore move on the remaining provisions
under paragraph 2.

Paragraph 2 (2) and (3) provides as
follows-

2.. "At the time and place notified for the verification and
collation of the constituency returns referred to in subparagraph (1) and in
the presence of such candidates, their chief elections agents and observers
as are present, the Chief Elections Officer shall display each constituency
return to those present and shall, on request, allow a candidate or chief
election agent of a candidate to make notes of the contents of each
constituency return."

3..This paragraph establishes that at the
time notified the collation and verification should start and continue
irrespective of the absence of other candidates. The words "as are present"
are instructive. The urgency which seems to have been abandoned in
subparagraph (1) seems to have been resumed. In paragraph 2 (3) the
legislature provided-

(3) "When the Chief Elections Officer has completed
the verification of the constituency returns under subparagraph (2) the
Chief Elections Officer shall, in the presence of such persons referred to
in subparagraph (2) as are present, add together the number of votes
received by each candidate as shown in each constituency
return."

This means once the invitees referred to in
subparagraph (1) arrive verification and collation shall continue in their
presence. We move on to paragraph 3 (1) which provides-

3(1) "Subject
to subparagraph (2), after the number of votes received by each candidate as
shown in each constituency return has been added together in terms of
subparagraph (3) of paragraph 2, the Chief Elections Officer shall forthwith
declare the candidate who has received (the qualifying votes in terms of (a)
and (b))

To be duly elected as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with
effect from the

day of that declaration." This means once the
verification and collation starts it continues until the winning candidate
is forthwith declared the president of Zimbabwe if the result produces a
winner with a majority of the votes caste. This clearly proves urgency is
resumed from the time the invitees come till the declaration of the winner.
This means from the transmission of the polling and constituency returns the
legislature intended that officials must urgently forward returns to the
Chief Elections Officer who must from the arrival of invited candidates or
their agents urgently collate and verify and declare the result of the
presidential poll.

Mr Muchadehama submitted that section 110
(3) of the Electoral Act must be factored in, in ascertaining the
legislature's intention on whether or not the respondents were intended to
act with urgency. The section provides as follows-

"Where two or more
candidates for President are nominated, and after a poll taken in terms of
subsection (2) no candidate receives a majority of the total votes cast, a
second election shall be held within twenty-one days after the previous
election in accordance with this Act." He further submitted that the
possibility of a second election within twenty-one days is consistent with
the urgency expressed in the sections and paragraphs already discussed
above. He said the time for the second election is fast approaching and
according to his calculation the second election must be held on the 19th
April 2008. He submitted that the legislature being aware of the possibility
of a re-run could not have intended paragraph 2 (1) of the second schedule
to give the 2nd respondent a wide discretion as to when he should collate
and verify constituency returns. The limited period between the first and
second election suggests that the first election's results must be processed
with urgency to avoid prejudicing candidates who will be contesting the
second election. The processing of presidential results must in my view be
given priority when compared to the announcement by the National Collation
Centre of other elections which have no possibility of a re-run. I am
therefore satisfied that the legislature intended that presidential election
results should be processed without any undue delay.

It
is however not in dispute that the legislature did not specify the period
within which presidential results should be collated, verified and
announced. Mr Muchadehama said it must be within a reasonable time and
relied on the provisions of section 3 (1) (b) of the Administrative Justice
Act (Chapter 10; 28), hereinafter called the Administrative Justice Act. It
provides as follows-

(1) "An administrative authority which has the
responsibility or power to take any

administrative action which may
affect the rights, interests or legitimate

expectations of any person
shall-

4.. act lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner; and

5.. act within the relevant period specified by law or, if there is no such
specified period, within a reasonable period after being requested to take
the action by the person concerned."

Mr Chikumbirike for the
respondents contented that the Administrative Justice Act does - not apply
to the respondents as the Commission is not an administrative authority. Mr
Muchadehama contented that it is and relied on its being created in terms of
section 3 of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act. Mr Chikumbirike
submitted that section 3 of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Act has since
been repealed and substituted. He is correct the provision which created the
Commission was repealed and was substituted by one which provides for the
procedure it shall follow and how it shall perform its functions. The
Commission as it now stands was established in terms of section 61 (1) of
the Constitution. Mr Muchadehama countered that in any event the 2nd
respondent remains within the meaning of "an administrative authority" as
defined by section 2 of the Administrative Justice Act, as he is authorized
by "an enactment to exercise or perform any administrative power or duty". I
agree with Mr Muchadehama's submission as the Chief Elections Officer is
employed by (ZEC) in terms of section 11 of the Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission Act, and his duties and functions are specified in that section.
The remaining issue on that aspect is whether the establishment of (ZEC) by
the Constitution excludes it from the definition of an administrative
authority.

Mr Muchadehama further submitted that
(ZEC) remains an "administrative authority" by virtue of the provisions of
Parts I and II of the schedule to the Administrative Justice Act. Mr
Chikumbirike submitted that, that is not the correct way of determining
whether or not (ZEC) is an admimstrative authority. Mr Muchadehama's
submission is premised on the fact that (ZEC) is not mentioned among the
administrative authorities for which, the application of the Administrative
Justice Act is limited or excluded. It is true that (ZEC) is not mentioned
in Parts I and II of the Schedule, but the limitation and exclusion must
only apply to those who fall under the definition of "administrative
authority". Those who do not fall within the definition need no limitation
or exclusion from the application of the Act as they are already not
affected by its application. I would therefore agree with Mr Chikumbirike
that the fact that (ZEC) was not mentioned in Parts I and II does not assist
in the determination of whether or not it is an "administrative
authority."

Mr Muchadehama sought to
establish the validity of the applicant's claim that (ZEC) had acted outside
the law by proving that it as an administrative authority had not announced
the presidential results within a reasonable time. In my view the conduct of
(ZEC) should be measured against section 61 (4) (a) of the Constitution
which provides as follows-

"The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission shall have
the following functions-

(a) to prepare for, conduct and
supervise-

I. elections to the office of President and to
Parliament;

II. elections to the governing bodies of local
authorities

III. referendums;

and to ensure that those elections
and referendums are conducted efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and
in accordance with the law;"

The standard set by the legislature in the
Constitution is for (ZEC) to perform any function required of it by the
legislature through the Constitution, the Electoral Act or the Zimbabwe
Electoral Commission Act, efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and in
accordance with the law. The use of the word efficiency when construed in
conformity with the urgency provided for in the Electoral Act means (ZEC)
must act accurately and timeously.

In this case the question to be
answered is did the respondents act efficiently, fairly, transparently and
in accordance with the law towards the collation, verification and
announcement of presidential results. If they did so that should be the end
of the inquiry. If they did not the failure must be identified then this
court can intervene and order compliance.

When the above
criteria is applied to the facts of this case and the law as provided in the
Electoral Act the applicant's allegations that there was delay seems to be
justified by the legislature's intention that the election results must be
processed without undue delay. This intention is revealed through the
provisions which provide for the transmission of polling station-returns and
constituency returns to the Chief Elections Officer, and how he should
conduct the collation, verification and declare the winning candidate. In
the absence of an explanation the delay between the 29th March 2008 and the
4th April 2008 seems to be unjustified and points to a lack of efficiency.
The period between the holding of the elections and the date of application
is six days. Three other elections involving greater numbers of candidates
were processed and finalized at their levels within two days of the date of
the elections. The work to be done by the Chief Elections Officer is made
simpler by the counting and collation done at polling stations and
constituency levels. All he has to do is to verify and display the
constituency returns and add the figures thereon to identify the winning
candidate whom he should forthwith declare the President of Zimbabwe. This
task should all things being equal not have taken the 2nd respondent up to
the 4th April 2008 to announce the presidential
results.

The explanation

The respondents explained the
delay through Justice George Chiweshe's opposing affidavit. In paragraph 18
of his opposing affidavit he said-

"In response to the letter of the 2nd
April 2008 Annexure "B" I had prior to receiving the application, which was
served on me last night, prepared a press statement, which I intended to
release, not only to inform the applicants of the Commission's position on
these issues, but to the country and world at large. I attach a copy of the
statement and request this Honourable Court to incorporate it as part of
this affidavit. The statement relates extensively and accurately to the
correct legal position. This statement is annexed as Annexure
"C"."

On page 2 to3 of Annexure "C" he explained that (ZEC) had received
several complains in terms of section 67 A of the Electoral Act..

At
page 2 of Annexure "C" he said "In this process, sight must not be lost of
the provisions of section 67A of the Electoral Act (Electoral Laws Amendment
Act No 17/07) which provides as follows:

"Within 48 hours after a
constituency elections officer has declared a candidate to be duly elected
in terms of section 66 (1), any political party or candidate that contested
the election in the ward or constituency concerned may request the
Commission to conduct a recount of votes in one or more of the polling
stations in the ward or constituency."

This is a right accorded to a
candidate or a political party that contested an election for either of the
house of Assembly. The same is also applicable to a presidential candidate,
by virtue of the provisions of part xviii, in section 112, which imports
part xiii of the Electoral Act (where section 67A is found). For the
avoidance of doubt, I relate to this section below:

"Subject to this
Part, the provisions of Parts XIII, (other than Sections sixty-six, '
sixty-seven, and six-eight, for which the provisions of the Second Schedule
are substituted), XIV, and XV, shall apply, with any changes that may be
necessary, to an election to the office of President".

After explaining
the effect of a miscounting even by one vote could have on a presidential
election, Justice Chiweshe concluded on page 3-4 by
saying-

"The Commission, it must be put on record, has
received several complaints in terms of section 67A.

The
Commission is in the process of considering the evidence submitted, to
determine whether a recount should or should not be done? The question, as
to whether to order a recount, or not, is entirely in the discretion of the
Commission. This is provided in section 67A (7) which provides-

"The
Commission's decision on whether or not to order a recount and, if it orders
one, the, extend, of the recount shall not be subject to
appeal".

Interpretation of the Law applicable to the
explanation

The prospect, of a recount, generated spirited legal
arguments for and against it. Mr Muchadehama submitted that section 67A
being part of section sixty-seven was excluded from the sections which were
imported into Part XVII by section 112. He further argued that section 67A
does not apply to presidential elections, because it is not found in Part
XVII where presidential elections are provided for.

Mr Chikumbirike
for the respondents argued that section 67A is a section of the Electoral
Act in its own right and was imported into Part XVII by virtue of its not
having been mentioned among the sections excluded by section 112.

I agree
with Mr Chikumbirike, because a section in a statute has its own separate
existence even if it shares a number with another section. It is
distinguished from the preceding section by the letter added to the number
it shares with the preceding section. A section in a statute is constituted
by the provisions after the number up to the last subsection under it. In
this case section 67 ends with subsection (3), and the next section which is
section 67A follows. Section 67A was not in the original Electoral Act. It
was introduced by section 48 of Act 17 of 2007. If the legislature intended
to make it part of section 67 it would have introduced it into the Act as a
subsection of section 67. A new section is usually placed in the part of the
statute where it fits into the scheme of the Act. In this case it was placed
between section 67 which provides for the notification of the result of an
election, and section 68 which provides for the publication of the names of
elected candidates in the Gazette, because that is where a recount
conveniently fits into the scheme of the Electoral Act, because it
determines the actual winning candidate whose name should be published. I am
therefore satisfied that section 67A enjoys a separate existence from
section 67. Therefore its exclusion from the sections of Part XIII, excluded
by section 112 from importation into Part XVII, means it was imported into
Part XVII.

Mr Muchadehama for the applicants summed up by submitting
that even if section 67A is held to be part of Part XVII it does not apply
to presidential elections because they have not yet been announced. He for
that argument relied on section 67A (l)'s provision that the complaint by a
party or candidate must be made within forty-eight hours after a candidate
for that election has been declared duly elected. Mr Chikumbirike for the
respondents submitted that the forty-eight hours within which the complaint
must be raised after the wining candidate has been declared does not apply
to presidential elections because section 112 provides for necessary changes
in the importation of Parts XIII, XIV and XV into Part XVII.

Section
67A as already found is part of Part XVII, by virtue of its importation
thereto by section 112. It therefore applies to presidential election
results with the necessary changes referred to by section 112. I however do
not agree with Mr Chikumbirike that the necessary changes extend to the
substantive provisions of section 67A. Where in a statute a provision from
one Part of a Statute is imported into another part of the same statute, to
"apply, with any changes that may be necessary" the court interpreting that
statute is not allowed to re-enact the relevant provision. It can only make
necessary changes, to make the provisions, fit into the importing Part. That
power is limited to the names of officers who act in the importing Part, the
sections empowering them to act, and the places where they are authorized to
act etc. The substantive provisions can not be changed. They are infact the
reason for the importation. They are intended to influence the provisions of
the importing Part.

In this case section 67A (1), will after the
necessary changes have been made read as follows-

(1) "Within
forty-eight hours after the Chief Elections Officer has declared a candidate
to be duly elected in terms of section 110 (6), as read with the provisions
of the Second Schedule, any political party or candidate that contested the
election for the office of President, may request the Commission to conduct
a recount of votes in one or more of the polling stations".

In its
changed form section 67A (1) means a recount can only be requested within
forty-eight hours after the declaration of the results of the presidential
election. A recount before the announcement of the results, is in terms of
section 67A (1) as imported into Part XVII, not provided for. If the request
for a recount in terms of section 67A (1), is the reason for the delay in
announcing the presidential results, the delay is based on an incorrect
interpretation of section 67A (1). It would thus be an invalid reason for
delaying the announcement of the presidential election results.

Mr
Chikumbirike for the respondents, further submitted that even if the
forty-eight hours apply (ZEC), can on its own initiative order a recount in
terms of section 67A (4) which provides as follows-

"The Commission
may on its own initiative order a recount of votes in any polling stations
if it considers there are reasonable grounds for believing that the votes
were miscounted and that, if they were, the miscount would have affected the
result of the election".

Mr Muchadehama for the applicants, submitted
that section 67A (4) should not be read in isolation, but together with
section 67A (1). He submitted that if read in the context of the whole
section, it means any recount contemplated by it can only be done after the
announcement of the results.

An analysis of section 67A (4) reveals that
(ZEC) can act on its own initiative to order a recount. It does not state
when it can do so as is specified in respect of subsection (1). The
information on which it may act on can come from any source including a
complain as provided in subsection (1). It simply should have grounds for
believing that votes were miscounted. If the legislature intended to
restrict the 1st respondent to considering a recount after the announcement
it could have made reference to subsection (1) as is done in subsection (3).
The wide discretion given to the 1st respondent on this aspect is confirmed
by the provisions of subsection (7) of section 67A. It provides as
follows-

(7) "The Commission's decision on whether or not to order a
recount and, if it orders one, the extent of the recount shall not be
subject to appeal".

The fact that (ZEC'S) decision to recount and the
extent thereof is not subject to an appeal means that it was intended to act
independently and that its decision would be final. The provision barring an
appeal simply means (ZEC) has been given a very wide discretion as to
whether or not to order a recount. The provision that (ZEC'S) decision shall
not be subjected to an appeal also means this court can not inquire into
that decision. This should therefore be the end of the inquiry, as the
respondent's conduct can only be open to the jurisdiction of this court when
it strays from the law.

I should therefore find that the reason proffered
by the respondents for their failure to timeously announce the presidential
results is legally valid. It can therefore justify the delay. The
respondents have not strayed from the law. This court is therefore not
entitled to intervene and order the respondents to announce the results on
the basis of failure to comply with the law.

Mr Chikumbirike sought
costs against the applicant's and their legal practitioners, at a higher
scale. He submitted that the applicant's application was not necessary as
the

applicants could have sought for information from the respondents. He
also relied on the fact that there are no time limits within which the
respondents are required to act, a fact which the applicants should have
known. Mr Muchadehama in response to the issue of costs said if any costs
are to be ordered they should be on the ordinary scale. He disputed that the
application could have been avoided as their letter of the 2nd April 2008
was not responded to. The issue of costs is in the court's discretion. That
discretion must be exercised in a manner that does not discourage people
from approaching the courts.Electoral matters are very important to
candidates, political parties and the nation. In this case the whole nation
is waiting for results. The applicants were anxious at the time they made
their application. Their legal practitioners wrote a letter expressing
anxiety and demanding the results but did not get a reply till they resorted
to this application. They should not be penalized by costs on the higher
scale for making an application in circumstances were delay is conceded but
has now been explained because of their application.

I
would in the result dismiss the application with costs on the ordinary
scale.